Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 815 (JK)

Suresh Thapa v. State of J&K & Ors.

2012-12-31

J.P.SINGH

body2012
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2008 registered under Section 306 RFC at Police Station Bari Brahmana, Jammu. 2. The petitioner says that he was unnecessarily taken into custody by Police and severely tortured that landed him in Hospital where he remained admitted for treatment until October 10,2007. The cruel treatment meted out to him during his police custody is stated reported to higher authorities including the Governor of State. The FIR is alleged as counter blast to the complaints that he, his family members and other villagers had made against the Police Officers, who were responsible for his torture. 3. Mr. Lehar, learned Senior counsel appearing for him submitted that the circumstances leading to the filing of Application by the complainant on the basis whereof FIR was registered would not disclose commission of any offence and registration of FIR was, therefore, abuse of the process of law and its continuance would result in failure of justice when the whole issue was considered in the background of facts leading to registration of FIR. 4. Per contra, the learned State counsel submitted that continuance of Inquest Proceedings would not debar registration of FIR against the petitioner, when the complainant had specifically accused the petitioner and his co-accused of their involvement in Suicide of his daughter-Tufeer Akhter. The Application filed by the complainant is stated by the learned counsel sufficient enough for registration of FIR requiring investigation into Tufeer Akhter's Suicide. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records. 6. Proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. were initiated by Police Station Bari Brahmana, Jammu to enquire into circumstances leading to Tufeer Akhter's Suicide. The Inquest Proceedings were still in progress when SHO Police Station Bari Brahmana registered FIR No. 7/2008 under Section 306 RPC against the petitioner and one Fatima Bibi, on an Application moved by the father of the deceased. 7. Perusal of the Application however reveals that there is no indication of any instigation, act, illegal omission or intentional aid, attributed to the petitioner, on the basis whereof it be said that such instigation, act, illegal omission or intentional aid had derived Tufeer Akhter to commit Suicide. 8. 7. Perusal of the Application however reveals that there is no indication of any instigation, act, illegal omission or intentional aid, attributed to the petitioner, on the basis whereof it be said that such instigation, act, illegal omission or intentional aid had derived Tufeer Akhter to commit Suicide. 8. All that is indicated in the Application is that right from the date of death of his daughter, the father of the deceased would suspect Fatima Bibi and Suresh Kumar of having abetted his daughter's Suicide. He, therefore, kept on enquiring and had no reasonable knowledge and belief that his daughter's unnatural death was because of the abetment of Fatima Bibi and Suresh Kumar. The facts, on the strength whereof, he had generated knowledge and belief, are, however, not there in the Application. 9. The question that, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether on the basis of such type of information, as was conveyed by the father of the deceased to the Police Station, a First Information Report, in law, could be entered when the Police was still holding Inquest Proceedings into the circumstances leading to death of Tufeer Akhter. 10. Perusal of Section 154 Cr. P. C. in terms whereof FIR may be registered in Police Station, reveals that when an Officer Incharge of Police Station receives any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall reduce it to writing, reading it over to the informant, who would sign it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a Book to be kept by the Officer Incharge of Police Station in such form as the Government may prescribe in this behalf. Information regarding commission of cognizable offence, as contemplated by Section 154 Cr.P.C, means information, regarding any act or omission, made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The information, on the basis whereof FIR be registered, therefore, must necessarily be regarding, any act or omission, made punishable by any law for the time being in force. 11. Whether the information given by the father of the deceased to the Station House Officer, revealed any act or omission, which was made punishable by laws in force in the State? 11. Whether the information given by the father of the deceased to the Station House Officer, revealed any act or omission, which was made punishable by laws in force in the State? The answer is No, in that, the father of the deceased, had neither conveyed nor indicated any such act or omission of the petitioner that be construed punishable by any law in force in the State. This is so because for registration of FIR under Section 306 RPC, the information must indicate any omission or act, which would indicate, instigation, aid, act or illegal omission of persons alleged responsible for Suicide of the deceased. 12. Mere statement of the father of the deceased that he had been investigating the matter and had reasonable knowledge to believe, without his disclosing the nature of such knowledge and belief, or the facts supporting it, or for that matter such circumstances or events, indicating that the deceased had died in disclosed facts and circumstances that may amount to instigation, aid, act or omission of the persons named in the FIR, would not be enough to construe commission of any offence under laws in force in the State. 13. Registration of FIR, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the statement of the father of the deceased was, therefore, unwarranted, because the police, which was continuing with Inquest proceedings, where the father of the deceased as also his other relations, had disclosed all those facts which were within their knowledge, had not been able to conclude on the available material with it about the circumstances leading to the Suicide of the deceased. 14. It is no doubt true that pendency of Inquest Proceedings, may not, debar registration of FIR as such; but before so doing, the material on which the FIR was registered must disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting registration of FIR. 15. The sketchy complaint of the father of the deceased, which does not indicate any act or omission suggesting commission of offence punishable under Section 306 RFC, the registration of FIR on said complaint scuttling proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. may not be warranted, for, registration of FIR on such type of complaints was likely to result in failure of justice. 16. 16. Discontinuance of Inquest Proceedings by Police and instead going in for registration of FIR, therefore, reveals subversion of the process of law initiated to ascertain true facts and circumstances leading to Suicide of Tufeer Akhter. 17. The Inquest proceedings are required to be taken to their logical conclusion so that correct facts and circumstances leading to the death of Tufeer Akhter were ascertained and requisite action taken, if warranted, against those responsible therefor. 18. This Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed, quashing FIRNo.7/2008 registered at Police Station Bari Brahmana. 19. Station House Officer, Police Station Bari Brahmana is directed to hold and conclude Inquest Proceedings afresh informing the concerned District Magistrate of the result thereof in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.